So at last we know where the Chairman of the Food Standards Agency,
Sir John Krebs gets his ideas. He writes (5th item), "as far as food is
concerned, Collman covers similar ground to that in Julian Morris and Roger
Bate's Fearing Food (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999) and Douglas Powell and
William Leiss's Mad Cows and Mother's Milk (McGill-Queens University Press,
1997). Perhaps one of the most telling arguments against the 'natural equals
safe, man-made equals dangerous' view of foods is the one put forward by
Bruce Ames and colleagues."

With a reading list like that, it could almost be TT himself at work.
For more on Krebs: http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/pants1.htm

January 9, 2002
Reuters
Christopher Doering
RENO - A Reuters survey of more than 300 growers, conducted at the
American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting, was cited as finding
that American farmers will shrug off European and Asian concerns about
genetically modified food and boost U.S. biotech corn plantings by more
than 13 percent this year, with a smaller increase planned for soybeans.
The story says that the biggest increase will come in bio-corn plantings,
with a leap of 13.8 to 19.3 percent depending on the variety, according
to the survey results. Plantings for the main variety of gene-spliced soybeans
will climb by a smaller 8.3 percent.

However, plantings of genetically engineered cotton will fall by 2 to
8 percent in 2002, reflecting an overall decline in cotton expected this
year, the survey showed. The story goes on to say that farmers surveyed
by Reuters said they would sharply increase plantings of Roundup Ready
corn by 19.3 percent in 2002.

Plantings of Bt corn will rise by 13.8 percent. The increase appeared
to be due mostly to the end of a year-long controversy over a variety of
bio-corn, known as StarLink, which was not approved for human food but
contaminated some 430 million bushels of the U.S. corn supply. Bob Stallman,
president of the Farm Bureau, was quoted as saying, "We've learned a lot
from StarLink, and producers have learned to ask a lot more questions.
There's a greater degree of comfort with biotech products and the marketing
of them."

According to data from the USDA, nearly 68 percent of U.S. soybeans,
or about 51 million acres, were genetically modified during 2001. That
compares to 54 percent in the prior year. Randy Krotz, a spokesman for
biotech giant Monsanto, was quoted as saying, "When you look at corn, soybean
and cotton, and you're on a significant amount of those acres already,
I can see where you'd take a step back and say that growth has stalled.
But has the excitement and acceptance slowed in agriculture? Not at all.
It's simply finding the next market." However, gene-altered cotton plantings
will shrink this year, the farmers said. Bt cotton plantings will fall
8.4 percent and Roundup Ready cotton will decline by 2.1 percent, according
to the survey. The decline is blamed mostly on a global glut of cotton.

***

ANTI-GM SABOTAGE DESTROYS POTATOES

January 10, 2002
The New Zealand Herald
Saboteurs have, according to this story, destroyed genetically modified
potatoes in the Crop and Food Research complex near Christchurch. The story
says that the cost of the attack is expected to be more than $100,000,
with research set back by months. One of the projects worst hit was looking
into better ways of non-GM potato improvement.

The crown research institute's "contained laboratory" for GM experiments
at the Lincoln Agriculture and Science Centre, a big glasshouse, was broken
into early today. The green tops were cut from plants and pots were emptied
into rubbish bags. Crop and Food chief executive Paul Tocker was cited
as saying 1334 plants from three research projects were damaged, with the
cost exceeding $100,000, adding, "These are not field trials. It is breaking
and entering a science laboratory with the intent to disrupt the progress
of science."

Crop and Food's GM potato work was attacked in 1999 in one of the first
high-profile protests in New Zealand. Last year, after the Government decided
not to extend a moratorium on GM field trials, the Wild Greens group said
protesters were focusing on 10 areas where trials might occur. It said
more than 3000 people had put their names to a pledge to take direct protest
action.

Mr Tocker said the latest raid had severely affected work by Dr Margy
Gilpin, whose project was trying to identify genetic sequences linked to
specific traits so conventional selective breeding of the plants could
be improved. Dr Gilpin was cited as saying she was devastated by the damage,
adding, "Ironically, our programme is studying genetic techniques to help
us find better ways of non-GM potato improvement. Because the plants have
now been either destroyed or cannot be accurately identified, we will be
unable to do the tests to verify all the science progress we have made
over the last three years."

January 10, 2002
National Post
A4
Sarah Schmidt
An analysis of Canadian government documents, obtained by Greenpeace,
shows that Canada is ill-prepared for environmental and health-related
fallout if banned genetically engineered food products enter the country.
The story says that StarLink, a genetically modified corn made in the United
States, was detected in food products in the United States and Canada last
year. It was also sold as animal feed in Canada, even though the product
has not been approved for environmental release or for feed or food use
here. In the United States, StarLink is only authorized to be used as animal
feed because of concerns it may trigger allergic reactions in humans.

The story says that the documents show Ottawa took six months after
the contamination to send a notice to seed importers about a requirement
for adequate documents indicating imported corn had been tested for StarLink
contamination.

Environment Canada did not establish a program to monitor the potential
ecosystem introduction of StarLink or any other genetically engineered
crop derived through biotechnology. The government has "made a commitment
to address ecosystem-related" concerns pertaining to genetically modified
organisms, the documents note. The documents also state the government
did not conduct a study to examine the health effects of StarLink, even
though it admits to four recalls of corn-based food products imported from
the United States. Health Canada argued the presence of Starlink corn protein
in food products constituted a "level of health concern which has a remote
probability of adverse health consequences," while acknowledging "it was
not possible to prove" the protein in Starlink was "unlikely to be an allergen,"
the documents state.

The story also notes that the StarLink contamination cost the government
at least $900,000, a "conservative" estimate of costs for which it did
not seek to recover from Aventis, which manufactured the banned product.
Eric Darier, genetic engineering campaigner for Greenpeace, who analyzed
the documents obtained under the Auditor-General Act, was cited as saying
the StarLink case illustrates how ill-prepared Canada is for this kind
of contamination, adding that the documents show government officials "don't
really have control over it. There's no evidence they can't prevent it.
The missing word is prevention. They're trying to manage contamination
rather than prevent it."

Bart Bilmer, director of the Office of Biotechnology at the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency, was cited as saying the government is prepared
to deal with genetically modified products at the border and that the government
handled the StarLink contamination "effectively," adding, "I think we serviced
the Canadian public well and we will continue to do so."

Dr. Mark Winston, professor of biological sciences at Simon Fraser University,
was cited as saying the six-month lag between the contamination alert and
notification to seed importers was inadequate, adding, "One thing we should
learn from this, whether a genetically modified product is a health risk
or not, [is] the level of public concern is high enough [that] we need
to expect rapid regulatory oversight. We just don't have the resources
to do the tests for the volume of products that are coming our way, and
will continue to come our way."

Dr. Brian Ellis, biotechnology professor at the University of British
Columbia, was cited as saying the response of the various agencies to the
StarLink contamination reflected a reasonable perception within government,
adding, "I don't think there was a strong sense of urgency. There was no
evidence that this posed an immediate health risk."

However, Dr. Ellis said the government learned an important lesson.
"It's a huge job just to get everybody on the same page. I think the government
has had the heads-up on the complexity in dealing with such a situation.
Are they prepared for next time? It's just like terrorist attacks. You
don't know where it will come from next."

***

SAUDI BIOTECH REGS NOT ENFORCED

January 9, 2002
AgWeb
Julianne Johnston
Saudi Arabia will be operating under new regulations regarding importation
of commodities resulting from biotechnology as 2002 gets underway. However,
industry sources say the regulations - which require import certification
and labeling for products derived from biotechnology - are not being enforced
yet. (ref.2343)

The U.S. Grains Council (USGC) is working to minimize the impact of
these new regulations. Although they are not currently being enforced,
it is not business as usual. Saudi Senior Ministry of Commerce officials
have stated that the government intends to begin collecting random samples
of imported foodstuffs at ports of entry for testing. USGC staff are currently
traveling to Saudi Arabia to meet with industry and government officials
to assess the situation, and to determine what additional actions the Council
can take to keep enforcement from occurring.

***

NATURE BOOK REVIEW: NATURALLY DANGEROUS: SURPRISING
FACTS ABOUT FOOD, HEALTH, AND THE ENVIRONMENT

January 10, 2002
Nature 415, 117
Naturally Dangerous: Surprising Facts about Food, Health, and the Environment
by James P. Collman
University Science Books: 2001. 280 pp. $29, £19.99
John Krebs, chairman of the UK Food Standards Agency and in the Department
of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK,
writes in this review that many believe that the natural toxins in their
food are safer than synthetic ones. If you ask people what they fear about
their food, typically the top half-dozen concerns are food poisoning, BSE,
growth hormones used in animals, animal feed, pesticides and genetically
modified (GM) food
(http://www.food.gov.uk).
But how do these perceived risks stack up with the estimates of deaths
caused by food? Acknowledging that these are only approximate, and that
great uncertainties surround some of the numbers, two food risks tower
above the rest: the dietary contributions to cardiovascular disease and
to cancer. These risks, taking a fairly conservative estimate, probably
account for more than 100,000 deaths per year in Britain. Food poisoning
probably accounts for between 50 and 300 (similar in range of magnitude
to the risk of choking to death on food or suffering a fatal accident while
getting into or out of bed). As far as we know, growth hormones (banned
in Europe) and pesticides in food, as well as GM food, are not responsible
for any deaths.

Krebs says that a generally accepted psychological explanation for the
discrepancy between perceived and actual risk is the one based on Paul
Slovic's identification of the range of factors that make risks seem more
frightening. Thus, for example, risks that are under someone else's control,
potentially catastrophic and unfamiliar are perceived as greater than those
with the opposite features. That is why most of us view riding our bicycle
in a busy street as a more acceptable risk than living near a nuclear power
station, although rational analysis says that you should stay off your
bike.

James Collman writes about another important dimension of risk perception
­ naturalness: "Many Americans are under the mistaken impression that
if something is 'natural' it is safe." Krebs says that as far as food is
concerned, Collman covers similar ground to that in Julian Morris and Roger
Bate's Fearing Food (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999) and Douglas Powell and
William Leiss's Mad Cows and Mother's Milk (McGill-Queens University Press,
1997).

Perhaps one of the most telling arguments against the 'natural equals
safe, man-made equals dangerous' view of foods is the one put forward by
Bruce Ames and colleagues. Fundamental to the safety assessment of any
potentially toxic substance is the maxim attributed to Paracelsus, that
the effects on the body of any substance, good or bad, depend on the dose.
Ames pointed out that if the same precautionary criteria that are used
to set pesticide safety levels toxicological data, including tests on rodents
for carcinogenicity were applied to the natural toxins in plants that have
evolved to deter predators, many foods would be deemed unsafe. For example,
potatoes, grilled food and peanuts would be banned if they underwent the
same kind of scrutiny as pesticide residues.

According to Ames, half of the natural toxins that have been tested
(most have not) are rodent carcinogens, and each year the average American
consumes about 10,000 times more of these natural pesticides than of synthetic
residues. A single cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal at
least to a year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in the diet.
The organic sector has claimed that its produce is lower in synthetic residues
(fewer pesticides are used) but higher in natural toxins. From Ames's line
of argument, consumers of organic produce may well be trading a minute
amount of synthetic residue for equally - if not more ­ dangerous natural
pesticides. This should, of course, be kept in perspective: any potentially
detrimental effect of natural pesticides or synthetic pesticide residues
is far outweighed by the health benefits of consuming five portions of
fruit and vegetables per day.

Krebs says that Collman's quirky and erratic account, more a series
of vignettes than a narrative, makes an effective case for not accepting
the simple equation 'natural = safe'. In addition to food, he covers herbal
medicines, environmental pollution, global warming, electromagnetic radiation
and radioactivity. Krebs says he would have liked a slightly less triumphalist
tone, in recognition that there are still many uncertainties in our understanding
of both environmental and diet-related impacts on human health. For instance,
the toxicological consequences of exposure to cocktails of residues and
the potential effects of long-term exposure are not well documented. As
new data emerge, the experts, quite correctly, sometimes change their minds
about safety limits. This recently happened for dioxins, for which the
safety level has been reduced by a factor of five. When viewed from the
perspective of scientific uncertainty, some of the fears about unknown
consequences may seem less irrational. A challenge for those responsible
for translating science into regulatory policy is to find an effective
way of taking people's concerns into account without straying from the
bedrock of scientific evidence. There are no easy answers, but a start
may be for scientists both to explain the uncertainties more fully, and
to emphasize that evidence is dynamic and evolving rather than a set of
ineluctable facts.

***

EFFECT OF INOCULATIVE RELEASES OF TRICHOGRAMMA OSTRINIAE
ON POPULATIONS OF OSTRINIA NUBILALIS AND DAMAGE TO SWEET CORN AND FIELD
CORN

January 10, 2002
Biological Control, pp. 1-7
Mark G. Wright, Thomas P. Kuhar, Michael P. Hoffmann, Sylvie A. Chenus
Abstract: European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) is one of the most
injurious pests of sweet and field corn in the United States. We report
here on controlled experiments in which an egg parasitoid (Trichogramma
ostriniae) was released inoculatively (75,000 females ha-1) early in the
growing season (when corn plants were at the early to mid-whorl stage)
to test its efficacy as a biological control agent of O. nubilalis. Releases
were made in fields of sweet corn and field corn. Numbers of eggs laid
in experimental plots, larval tunnels, and larvae and proportion of damaged
ears were determined. (ref.2340) Mass of ears was determined for field
corn plots. In sweet corn, despite greater oviposition by O. nubilalis
in T. ostriniae release plots, the number of borer larvae, stalk tunnels,
and damaged ears was reduced by ~50% compared with those in nonrelease
plots. This reduction in damage was consistent for early and late-planted
sweet corn. In the field corn plots, larger numbers of O. nubilalis eggs
were again laid in some release plots than in control plots. However, O.
nubilalis damage appeared to be suppressed in T. ostriniae release plots,
although no significant differences were found in most. These results were
promising, but further work is required in field corn. The results for
sweet corn demonstrated that inoculative releases of T. ostriniae provide
suppression of O. nubilalis populations adequate to reduce damage significantly.

***

SOD LAUNCHES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

January 10, 2002
The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
C1 / Front
The Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD) will, according to this
story, launch a class action lawsuit against Monsanto and Aventis today
in Saskatoon. SOD, on behalf of certified organic farmers in Saskatchewan,
was cited as saying it will seek compensation for damages caused by genetically
modified (GM) canola. It will also try to get an injunction preventing
Monsanto from introducing GM wheat in Saskatchewan.

SOD announced its intention to file the suit in October 2001 and launched
a fund-raising drive to pay for the action. When the group announced the
fund's launch, it contained only $1,000 and SOD said it would take at least
$50,000 to get it to court. The organization said it hoped consumers and
organic producers would support the SOD Organic Agriculture Protection
Fund.